zoranT: In my view, the image quality of all recent APS-C sensor cameras is pretty much the same. It boils down to what lenses you have and what you need around that sensor. This seems to be the reason why the most innovative products are not always the most sold ones.

People talk about Canon's old fashioned sensors (I agree) and lack of some feature they can't live without (that didn't exist a year ago but now is essential.) But after 2000 comments it's obvious a lot of people own and use Canon and will not be dumping everything to switch.

If I were a camera manufacturer my worry wouldn't be about lack of innovations or not enough solutions looking for problems. My worry would be that all these cameras and most of their predecessors are completely adequate for most people's needs. There is little reason to upgrade and far less to switch.

gdprice: We have used the G series since they first arrived and have upgraded a number of times. Currently we have a G12 (which has a lens issue so we were thinking of upgrading) and a G1X (which is rubbish). If it were not for the fact that we have a ST-E3-RT Speedlite Transmitter and 3 x 600EX-RT Speedlites which all work perfectly with all the G Series cameras we might look for alternatives. When I saw the G7X announcements I thought this might be a good option for an upgrade but it doesn't have a hotshoe so can't be used with the flashguns. This seems really strange for a semi-professional camera and makes me really worried that Canon might omit it from all future G Series releases making much of my system obsolete.

What would make a point and shoot camera a semi-professional camera? You would think a professional would carry as much as it takes to get the job done with the highest level of quality.

I find the (albeit very casual) G7 X samples posted here on DPR by Jeff really disappointing in terms of quality - soft and mushy esp. in small detail/leaves, with drab colours/lack of contrast, massive purple fringing in high contrast areas, and very soft corners/distortion which is not what I'd expect from such a hyped 1" (Sony) sensor cam, but the Canon processing engine and Canon lens must be inferior to Sony's engine and Zeiss lens. The Sony has clearly better IQ and AF. I am still puzzled why on earth Jeff thinks that the Canon has good image quality. It really doesn't, even without comparing it to its direct competitor.

The images I shot with the G7 X at a store also showed poor IQ. It's only advantage over Sony's RX 100 III is its longer tele lens and the aperture that stays brighter longer. But who cares about brightness if the photos end up being soft by default and full of purple fringing?

A.

The comment about very soft corners was why I got rid of my Sony RX100 mk1 and mk2. That the Canon may be even worse is little consolation. I guess it's fair to say Sony is the king of this $700 PS soft corner segment. Since one corner is usually worse than the others I wouldn't blame Zeiss, whose design is probably great. On paper, anyway.

BTW, Nikon is blowing out the Coolpix A for $599, a pretty good deal if you'll trade versatility for image quality.

Interesting what one person finds essential is unimportant to someone else. What bugs me about my 5D3 is no pop-up flash. Seriously. I know a pro would never use it, but on my Nikons, it saves me having to carry a small flash and flash trigger.

Cubby1: This has to be a bias review; at least to some extent. (Otherwise, why would you offer a counterpoint at the end?) Usually I follow reviews on DPR and Cameralabs as the primary sites, and also look at the others. Generally, except DPR, they all seem to think the G7 X is pretty good, and responsive. And, the images are "excellent". So, who is out of step? This has to be the most negative review I have ever read on DPR. Either you had a bad sample, or you have it in for Canon, or......what?

There is a long tradition with large, influential camera reviewers (back to Popular Photography, I think) of always finding nice things to say. If it takes a second opinion to come up with something nice, they'll do it.

Reviews of this type of camera will always be biased because the camera is a compromise. Some users care mostly about the image quality and will live with other shortcomings. But others are more concerned about "user experience". You can have both, but not in a camera this size.

lacikuss: So what are the expectations for a mini camera like this? To perform like a FF pro camera? lol...

What we are talking about is a little "gold mine" market segment that Sony discovered to which it sells convenient cameras for $800 and Canon now for $700. These cameras don't offer high IQ but because their size and no competition people would pay those prices. I'm happy with the competition, I hope the price will come down to around $450 which is what it is worth to me.

They do offer better IQ than your best smarthphone though

Not a gold mine but one of the few areas where the market hasn't been saturated. The good news for manufacturers is that there is plenty of room for improvement in these cameras and anybody serious enough to spend this money will happily buy the next one if they improve the image quality, focus speed, etc.

I have a third opinion (and having had two Sonys) which is that neither of these cameras is worth the money. The whole point of buying one of these is to get $800 image quality but neither is really spectacular--they are just surprisingly good relative to their size. In other words, pay a big premium for compactness.

But then to say I can't access the card while it's on a tripod...if you're going to carry a tripod, that's 2-3 pounds right there. Why not add a few ounces and bring a bigger camera with image quality worthy of using a tripod?

stevevelvia50: I first saw images of this abandoned town through the work of world renown photographer Freeman Patterson. Perhaps someone had photographed there before him, but his compositional approach to making photographs within the buildings are the ones that have been countlessly imitated over the years. That being said many great images are still being made here by a new generation of photographers.

I'd be interested in seeing a photo taken with a 16mm lens on a full frame camera where the effect of the polarization--sorry, polarisation, is equal and even across the entire image. With live view, you can even see in advance that it won't work.

In some places the Canon looks soft and in others, the Sonys have so much CA there are red fringes around the test pattern. As always, the camera with a bigger sensor gives better results and if you want a small camera with really sharp corners and wide angle, skip zoom lenses entirely. Well, no surprises.

Joseph Black: Hating Canon is the new thing to do. If some of these people weren't so bored with their cameras or with photography in general maybe they'd stick to having constructive conversations in forums that are actually relevant to them. Think Canon is doomed, lazy, neglecting their customers? Fine. Why not go on about your business and just let them die? Why do we have to hear your self-righteous disconent?

Instead of hating a company, hate the people who keep buying the cameras. They're the ones who enable the company to keep on selling in large numbers. The "enemy" is people who keep buying Canon cameras. If they found the cameras didn't meet their needs, Canon would be forced to make something different.